Foreclosure - Contesting A Foreclosure

Contesting A Foreclosure

Because the right of redemption is an equitable right, foreclosure is an action in equity. To keep the right of redemption, the debtor may be able to petition the court for an injunction. If repossession is imminent the debtor must seek a temporary restraining order. However, the debtor may have to post a bond in the amount of the debt. This protects the creditor if the attempt to stop foreclosure is simply an attempt to escape the debt.

A debtor may also challenge the validity of the debt in a claim against the bank to stop the foreclosure and sue for damages. In a foreclosure proceeding, the lender also bears the burden of proving they have standing to foreclose.

Several U.S. states, including California, Georgia, and Texas impose a "tender" condition precedent upon borrowers seeking to challenge a wrongful foreclosure, which is rooted in the maxim of equity that "he who seeks equity must first do equity," as well as the common law rule that the party seeking rescission of a contract must first return all benefits received under the contract.

In other words, to challenge an allegedly wrongful foreclosure, the borrower must make legal tender of the entire remaining balance of the debt prior to the foreclosure sale. California has one of the strictest forms of this rule, in that the funds must be received by the lender before the sale. One tender attempt was held inadequate when the check arrived via FedEx on a Monday, three days after the foreclosure sale had already occurred on Friday.

At least one textbook has attacked the paradox inherent in the tender rule—namely, if the borrower actually had enough cash to promptly pay the entire balance, they would have already paid it off and the lender would not be trying to foreclose upon them in the first place—but it continues to be the law in the aforementioned states.

Occasionally, borrowers have raised enough cash at the last minute (usually through desperate fire sales of other unencumbered assets) to offer good tender and have thereby avoided foreclosure or at least preserved their rights to challenge the foreclosure process. Courts have been unsympathetic to attempts by such borrowers to recover fire sale losses from foreclosing lenders.

One noteworthy but legally meaningless court case questions the legality of the foreclosure practice is sometimes cited as proof of various claims regarding lending. In the case First National Bank of Montgomery vs Jerome Daly Jerome Daly claimed that the bank didn't offer a legal form of consideration because the money loaned to him was created upon signing of the loan contract. The myth reports that Daly won, and the result was that he didn't have to repay the loan, and the bank couldn't repossess his property. In fact, the "ruling" (widely referred to as the "Credit River Decision") was ruled a nullity by the courts.

In a recent New York case, the Court rejected a lender's attempt to foreclose on summary judgment because the lender failed to submit proper affidavits and papers in support of its foreclosure action and also, the papers and affidavits that were submitted were not prepared in the ordinary course of business.